Centennial law Offices Debt Relief Help

After reading your complaint, your whole case seems like it's based on a single word "scam," that you describe as defamatory and actionable.     I think you have a very long row to hoe to establish that.    To quote from the 1St Circuit's ruling in McCabe vs Rattiner:  "Beginning with the statement itself, we observe that the word "scam" does not have a precise meaning. As the district judge said in his bench ruling, "it means different things to different people ... and there is not a single usage in common phraseology." While some connotations of the word may encompass criminal behavior, others do not. 2 The lack of precision makes the assertion "X is a scam" incapable of being proven true or false. Cf. Buckley v. Littel, 539 F.2d 882, 895 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1062, 97 S.Ct. 786, 50 L.Ed.2d 777 (1977) ("[t]he issue of what constitutes an 'openly fascist' journal is as much a matter of opinion or idea as is the question what constitutes 'fascism' or the 'radical right' ").  McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F.2d 839, 842 (1st Cir. 1987)

And there you have it! My dogs scam me every day! Outa doggy cookies! The cat scams for kitty treats hourly. I accuse them of it on a daily bases. Even the husband scams for a few hugs and kisses, occasionally stooping to blackmail. If you post in forums repeatedly (aka spam) with a neon sign saying "wee wee look at me" stratagem, that kinda smacks of scamming for attention.

I think this went past attention seeking though, what with the threats to regular members here along with non regular members. Harassment comes to mind here, along with heckling people and fomenting a problem.

>>>  McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F.2d 839, 842 (1st Cir. 1987) <<<

Without offering any opinion as to the current controversy or court case, I fell obliged to point out that the case cited above is not controlling authority to the case in Ventura County.  Ventura County, California is in the region of the country assigned to the 9th Federal Circuit, not the 1st Federal Circuit, which is assigned primarily to New England.  (The McCabe case originated in Rhode Island.)

While McCabe may have some persuasive value in a court in California, the court would not be bound by it.

I'm well aware, but the idea of a Ventura county court essentially overruling a Federal appellate court, whatever the district, especially when it involves federally-protected 1st Amendment issues, is pretty far fetched.   Absent  a specific state statute or ruling to the contrary by the California Supreme Court or the Federal Ninth Circuit, which I certainly couldn't find, (let me know if you find something different; my review wasn't exactly exhausive) the finding of the First Circuit concerning the word "scam," specifically, would be extremely persuasive if not strictly precedent.

>>> I'm well aware, but the idea of a Ventura county court essentially overruling a Federal appellate court, whatever the district, especially when it involves federally-protected 1st Amendment issues, is pretty far fetched.  <<<

Actually, it isn't.  The Supreme Court handles conflicts between the various federal circuits.  There are many such conflicts between the circuits, but the Supreme Court is not obliged to resolve these conflicts until such time as they choose to do so by accepting certiorari.

>>> Absent  a specific state statute or ruling to the contrary by the California Supreme Court or the Federal Ninth Circuit, which I certainly couldn't find, (let me know if you find something different; my review wasn't exactly exhausive) the finding of the First Circuit concerning the word "scam," specifically, would be extremely persuasive if not strictly precedent. <<<

The meaning of the word "scam" is a finding of fact, not of law, and the judge in a lower court has a broad degree of discretion as to whether to admit expert testimony on that subject.  From McCabe, "The second claim is that the judge should have admitted expert testimony regarding the meaning of the word 'scam' as used in Rhode Island newspapers. The district court has broad discretion in admitting expert testimony. See, e.g., Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 125, 94 S.Ct. 2887 2911, 41 L.Ed.2d 590, reh'g denied, 419 U.S. 885, 95 S.Ct. 157, 42 L.Ed.2d 129 (1974). We cannot say that the trial judge's determination that the testimony would not 'assist the trier of fact' is an abuse of that discretion. See Fed.R.Evid. 702."

Again, I don't want to get drawn into this controversy on either side, but I think you may be going a bit too far in your legal analysis.  And to a layman, you may be starting to appear rather authoritative on the subject of first amendment law.  That could possibly get you into trouble.  I don't say that as a threat, but merely as an observation.  There are always people looking for new ways to get you into trouble, and I am just not convinced that hiding behind the TOS rules of this web site and/or the First Amendment avoids all of those ways all of the time.

But then, as has been said before, legal advice you get for free over the Internet is worth every penny you pay for it, and I try not to claim to be an expert.

Thanks for explaining all this.

You are quite welcome.  Just remember that I am not dispensing legal advice, only a common-sense (to me, anyway) admonition to use some caution from time to time.  Other people may disagree with me, and they may be braver and/or smarter than I am.  (For their sake, I hope they are both.)

Having read this entire thread, and what a waste of time that was. I have several points and questions about this Centennial Law and Robert Amador.

Point 1) First, anybody can post under any name on here. Robert makes that point when he claims that some other person posted using the handle of Robert Amador.

Question 1) So how does Mr Amador even know that the posting using the Tango One handle even a guy named Ray Thompson? Is he just making some association between names? Can he actually prove that whoever he says Ray Thompson and/or Tango One is, actually made that post?

Point 2) He says somebody named Ray Thompson called him and he talked to this person, then 2 posted appeared on this web site. Any person could have called him and given any name.

Question 2) How does Mr Amador know that a person named Ray Thompson called him? Did he ask for a name? Did he get it off a caller ID? Why does he believe that such a person would honestly tell him their name?

Point 3) Mr Amador posts a link to a web site, which I note is not necessarily a court web site. It could be and looks like a private website where people can make posts, similar to this one. And he just posted some photo scanned pages. Going to the actual district courts website and entering the correct information, I notice that Mr Amador while claims he has sued somebody named Ray Thompson, he has not yet served the summons or court papers to this person, and no court hearing on the matter has happened. So really, all Mr Amador has done is filed a case.

Question 3) Why did you not post the court link for people to look it up in the court system for themselfs?

Other notes: This is what I got directly from the Courts web site using the case number given.
1    Complaint filed by Amador, Robert on 08/14/2013.
Filed by:Amador, Robert (Plaintiff)
Refers to:Thompson, Ray(Defendant)
2    Civil Case Cover Sheet filed by Amador, Robert on 08/14/2013.
3    Case assigned to Department 42.
4    MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service/Default - scheduled for 01/17/2014 at 08:15:00 AM in 22B at Ventura.
5    Proof of Service of 30-day Summons & Complaint - Substitute submitted by Amador, Robert rejected on 12/10/2013.
6    Case Management Statement filed by Amador, Robert on 01/03/2014.
7    Proof of Service of 30-day Summons & Complaint - Substitute submitted by Amador, Robert rejected on 01/15/2014.
8    MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service/Default - scheduled for 03/10/2014 at 08:15:00 AM in 22B at Ventura.
9    Minutes finalized for MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service/Default heard 01/17/2014 08:15:00 AM.
10    Minutes finalized for heard 01/30/2014 01:13:00 PM.
11    Clerk's Certificate of Service By Mail (out of process) VENTURA generated.
12    MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service/Default - scheduled for 04/11/2014 at 08:15:00 AM in 22B at Ventura.
13    Minutes finalized for MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service/Default heard 03/10/2014 08:15:00 AM.
14    Clerk's Certificate of Service By Mail (out of process) VENTURA generated.
15    Proof of Service of 30-day Summons & Complaint - Substitute (served Vicky Hamiliton, employee) filed by Amador, Robert on 04/10/2014.
16    Response (to Order to Show Cause) filed by Amador, Robert on 04/10/2014.
17    MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service/Default - scheduled for 06/06/2014 at 08:15:00 AM in 22B at Ventura.
18    Minutes finalized for MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service/Default heard 04/11/2014 08:15:00 AM.
19    Proof of Service of 30-day Summons & Complaint - Substitute submitted by Amador, Robert rejected on 04/15/2014.
20    Proof of Service - MAILING (Notice of CMC/OSC Hearing) filed by Amador, Robert on 04/28/2014.
21    Commission for Out of State Deposition issued filed by Amador, Robert on 05/08/2014.
22    Notice - Other (of Commission to take deposition outside California) filed by Amador, Robert on 05/08/2014.
23    Statement of Damages (pos attached) filed by Amador, Robert on 05/29/2014.
24    Request for Entry of Default filed by Amador, Robert on 05/29/2014.
25    Default entered as to Thompson, Ray on Complaint.
26    Tentative Ruling published.
27    OSC for Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Judgment - Re: Default Judgment scheduled for 08/08/2014 at 08:15:00 AM in 22B at Ventura.
28    Minutes finalized for MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service/Default heard 06/06/2014 08:15:00 AM.
29    Clerk's Certificate of Service By Mail (out of process) VENTURA generated.
30    Tentative Ruling published.
31    Request for Entry of Court Judgment filed by Amador, Robert on 08/07/2014.
32    Miscellaneous (Pltfs Memoranda in support of Default Judgment) filed by Amador, Robert on 08/07/2014.
33    Affidavit - Other (of Robert Amador in support of Pltfs Def Judgment) filed by Amador, Robert on 08/07/2014.
34    Affidavit - Other (of Dawn Drangle in support of Default Judgment) filed by Amador, Robert on 08/07/2014.
35    Affidavit - Other (of Fria Reyes in support of Default Judgment) filed by Amador, Robert on 08/07/2014.
36    Request for Dismissal of Does (1-5) filed by Amador, Robert on 08/07/2014.
38    OSC for Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Judgment - Re: Default Judgment scheduled for 10/01/2014 at 08:15:00 AM in 22B at Ventura.
39    Minutes finalized for OSC for Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Judgment heard 08/08/2014 08:15:00 AM.
40    Judgment by Default by Court filed by Amador, Robert on 08/13/2014.
41    Judgment for Amador, Robert against Thompson, Ray in the amount of: 225000.00 principal, 0.00 punitive damages, 635.00 costs, 0.00 pre-judgment interest, and 0.00 attorney fees entered on 08/13/2014.
42    Case disposed with disposition of Default judgment by court.
43    OSC for Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Judgment - Re: Default Judgment scheduled for 10/01/2014 at 08:15:00 AM in 22B was vacated.

Now, if this thompson person was never served, I think he would have a very strong case against Mr Amador, and if it proves that Mr thompson was never served, it would seem that Mr Amador is the "scam" artists that whoever made the original posting claimed.

I would love to come up with the entire case file and see what is exactly in it. cause it seems, Mr amador just might have pulled the wool over the courts eyes....

You are exactly correct-by actually serving 'Ray Thompson', that would have exposed this so-called 'law office' to lose quite a bit of funds out of their little 'operation'. Amador is all talk because he KNOWS he doesn't have a case and is ticked off about it. This person is just one of many that has been exposed for what they truly are (frauds, shills and the like) on this site. They are losing money because of this so they make false claims against the owner and other posters.

I gather from the post of The Lord God Almighty, that Amador actually won the law suite against Mr Thompson. I also gather that Mr Amador did so by lying to the court and court corruption.

Several problems I see with this, beyond the fact anybody can post under any name on this site. One problem I see is that how is Mr amador going to collect the judgement? He does not name an exact person, beyond a name of Mr Thompson. Another problem I see in this is that in the document Mr Amador posted as his claim to the law suite, lists Mr Thompson as a California resident. First there are a lot of Ray Thompsons in California, so which one is he going to try and collect from? Next, in the court filings listed above, Mr Amador then files to do an out of state deposition. so did he know that his Mr Thompson did not actually live in california? So he lied to the court in his statements. So he's lying to the courts now?

If I was Mr Thompson, and I got wind of this, and i was never served. I would go after Mr Amador for everything Mr Amador has, and I would multiply the damages and the asked amount by at least 100 times. I would also go to every person Mr Amador has sued on behalf of any client, and let them know of Amador lying to the courts to win his cases, against them. I would also seek to have him disbarred. And I would campaign so heavily that nobody ever became a client of Mr Amadors.

I also noticed after reading this whole topic, and checking out Mr Amadors web site, several suspect things. One being that for a lawyer, my Amador has bad grammar and bad spelling. The Mr Amadors web site, is a very cheap templated web site. His contract address is actually a post office box, and not an actual brick and mortar business.

I will have to say, I am not Mr Thompson, nor do I think any of the other posters here are actually Mr Thompson that Mr Amador speaks of. I do not know how he came to decide that it was a Mr Thompson that made the post, since anybody can post under any name they want too. And I feel sorry for whatever innocent soul Mr Amdor screws over in this act of his.

It is bad that this jerk possibly got away with this...but I find the post kind of suspicious myself. It seems far too detailed.

I know of a Mr Thompson. Who just might be the guy Mr Amador seems to be going after. However, the Mr Thompson I know of has been deployed with a multi-agency task force over in Afghanistan since 2011. So he would not have been the person to make the call to Mr Amador. If Mr Amador chose this Mr Thompson to go after. He may have done so because he knew Mr Thompson was unreachable and would not be making court to dispute Mr Amadors claims.

Not much more I can say about this, just that Mr Amador is becoming too well known in circles he should not want attention from. his behaviour of harassing an Air Force One pilot, going after a Special Operations Marine on assignment to a compartmentalised operation. Acting in very unprofessional manners, which would be an embarrassment to the court, and pushes that boundary of court conduct and how officers of the court are suppose to act.

Anything more that whats described here, is way above my pay grade and clearance level.

And since Mr Amador seems to accuse everybody here as being Mr thompson or how all the posts are made by Mr Thompson, i will disclaimer myself. I am not Mr Thompson.

I came upon this site from doing some research on Centennial Law Offices/Group.

I do find it interesting. One thing that got my attention is how Mr Amador makes a statement about "paranoia" or "conspiracy theorists", and yet he then makes a statement how every post made must be made by one person, who is this person Mr Amador is suing. I hate to say it, but that sounds a little "paranoid" or kind of like a "conspiracy theory" there Mr Amador.

I can not say how Mr Amadore came to the conclusion he did. The one where the poster listing himself as Tango One is somebody named Ray Thompson. Maybe he just did a Google search. He though huh, Tango One, well I will Google it, and from a Google search found a listing for Mr Thompson being associated with Tango One.

I do find it interesting, that some very specific questions have been posed, or asked, and Mr Amador, who did seem very active here at one point. Seem to blatantly ignore them, and then just disappeared.

Having read through the entire case as posted by the link Mr Amador himself posted, plus the link to the official court website. I can say, Mr Amador really does not show any sort of actual proof that My Thompson actually made the posts as claimed, nor that he actually talked to Mr Thompson, or even to anybody officially associated with Tango One.

If Mr Amador is actually going after somebody involved with a Compartmentalized operation involving National Security, then he has bitten off a lot more than he can chew. Although I have seen no proof of this.

It is correct, anybody can post up as any name they want to, and that does not mean they are who they post as.

Mr Amador has made his own self out to look like a scam artists, by his very actions and his own posts here to this thread.

Last of all, to Mr Amador, if you have gone after a person who is on an active Compartmentalized Operation involving National Security, I say: good luck to you. You have just gotten the attention of the entire Intelligence industry. Going after one of those guys, is like being a cop killer. You kill a cop, and every cop in the nation will be after you. They have all the time in the world and a lot of resources to learn about everything in your life. Who you talk to, where you go, what you do, what you say, every move you make. Hopefully, you have never ever come across anybody who has any ties at all to terrorism, not even once, even if it was just to say hello in public. You have gone after one of their own, they will come after you. That is, if it is true that the person you have chose to sue is involved in an active Compartmentalized Operation involving National Security. I don't think I would even take that chance. Just a piece of advice from a former Operator.